In cases of circumstantial evidence, where an accused shares the house with the deceased and fails to provide any explanation for the death (per Section 106, Evidence Act), his unexplained absence and motive, coupled with forensic evidence, constitute a complete chain of circumstances sufficient for conviction.

Judgment

Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 13.04.2026

Date on which judgment is reserved : 13.04.2026

Whether the full judgment or only the

operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment

Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2026

Per Hon’ble Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

By way of this criminal appeal, the accused-appellant (for short, ‘the appellant’) has assailed the legality and validity of the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Hindaun City, District-Karauli (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 51/2016 (03/2014) whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000/-; in default whereof, one year’s additional simple imprisonment.

In nutshell, the facts are that Vishnu Khatana (PW1) submitted a written report dated 04.11.2013 at about 01.45 pm with Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli stating therein that in the night of 01.11.2013, after having dinner, his cousin Dhara Singh @ Dara Singh slept at about 10.00 pm in a room and in the nearby room, his younger brother Amrit @ Darab @ Pappu was sleeping. It was averred that in the morning of 02.11.2013, Dhara Singh was found dead with ligature mark, from a rope, on his neck. It was alleged that the appellant used to threaten to eliminate Dhara Singh and has murdered him by strangulation. Based thereupon, an FIR No. 294 dated 04.11.2013 was registered under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC whereunder, charge was also framed against him. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant contended that findings of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and it has erred in convicting him in absence of any legally admissible evidence. Inviting attention of this Court towards the testimony of Rampati (PW3) and Pitram (PW4)-mother and father of the deceased respectively, he contended that they have admitted their absence from the place of incident in the night and could not have been reckoned as the witnesses of ‘last seen’. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has also failed to establish the motive behind commission of the offence which has great relevance in the cases based on circumstantial evidence. He argued that the prosecution could not establish the complete chain of circumstances leading to only conclusion of his guilt. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 30.09.2016 be quashed and set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions, cotended that the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC after appreciation of cogent evidence on record. He submitted that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant, they slept under the same roof and in the morning, the deceased was found dead; but, the appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for it. He canvassed that all the witnesses have stated in unison that the appellant had a grudge against the deceased on account of his engagement prior to him. He also contended that there was recovery of the rope used by the appellant in commission of the offence based on his disclosure statement. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard. Considered.

As per the opinion of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy as reflected in the postmortem report (Ex. P11) which was proved by Dr. Dharam Singh Meena (PW14) and Dr. Ratnesh Meena (PW15)-the Members of the Medical Board, cause of death of Dhara Singh @ Dara Singh (deceased) was found to be asphyxia due to strangulation which was sufficient to cause death. It was also found that deceased had transverse ligature mark around the neck completely encircling it below the thyroid cartilage with 1 cm. width.